Susan Vogt, Opinion contributor Published 8:50 a.m. ET June 29, 2020

People rally to support and oppose the "heartbeat bill" outside the Ohio House of Representatives chamber at the Ohio Statehouse on April, 10, 2019.(Photo: Jackie Borchardt/Cincinnati Enquirer)

I am a pro-life Catholic. But before you put me in an ideological box and assume you know who I will vote for this fall, let me complicate the issue.

My conscience and faith lead me to oppose abortion. Indeed, Catholics are taught not to take the life of an unborn child. However, Catholic or not, this is a moral question which women facing an unwanted pregnancy have to wrestle with. There are indeed, situations in which even a rigorist conscience might pause when faced with rape, incest, or risking the death of the mother.

Add to this that we live in a pluralistic society. One groups religious and moral convictions should not be imposed on another without broad societal consensus. Our country does not have consensus about abortion. Therefore, the emphasis should be on persuasion and compassion rather than seeking a political solution to abortion (like overturning Roe v Wade).

It is not honest to talk about being pro-life without also talking about what Cardinal Joseph Bernardin called "the Seamless Garment,"or the Consistent Ethic of Life. Of course, this includes opposition not only to abortion, but also taking a life through euthanasia, capital punishmentand unjust war. Equally unacceptable are failures to protect life by tolerating poverty, racism, lack of affordable health careand similar societal injustices that threaten the lives and dignity of human beings.

Thats a tall order, but to be pro-life one must stand in solidarity with all humanity and work to protect all life. Unfortunately, too often the loudest voices against abortion are weak on protecting the lives of vulnerable human beings after they are born.

People protest outside of the U.S. Bank Arena during President Trump's "Keep America Great" campaign rally on Thursday, August 1, 2019. A bus with an anti-abortion message drives by during the protest.(Photo: Madeleine Hordinski/The Enquirer)

Would it not be better to:

The evidence is that such holistic caring for pregnant women and children reduces the abortion rate more than restrictive laws.

So, is it possible to be pro-Life AND pro-choice? First, this is a false binary choice. Being pro-choice does not equal favoring abortion. It remains a tragic choice.

The answer, however, I believe, is simple and complex: Who is my neighbor? If my neighbor is everyone, then how do I love, respectand protect their lives and dignity? To be pure about protecting human life means that I have to respect all human lives born and unborn.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

In order to be a fully pro-life voter I propose asking:

As regretful as abortion is, I believe the decision rests within the conscience of the pregnant woman. This should not primarily be a legal issue, but a moral one. It must be won by persuasion and support, not law.

Susan Vogt lives in Covington and was employed for over 25 years as a Family Life Minister in two Catholic dioceses, including responsibility for overseeing the pro-life work of the Diocese of Covington.

Susan Vogt(Photo: Provided)

Read or Share this story: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2020/06/29/opinion-possible-pro-life-and-pro-choice/3248965001/

Read more:

Opinion: Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice? - The Cincinnati Enquirer

One year ago, the Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Act came into effect after a prolonged, intense and divisive public debate.

For some, it marked a major step forward for individual freedom in Victoria an acknowledgement of the right of individuals to choose how they wished to live and die. For others, it signified a betrayal of some of the most fundamental moral precepts of our society and a reversal of the basic commitments of the medical profession.

A year later, what can we say about the impact of the legislation on Victorian life? We have been considering this question as part of our federally funded research project examining the impact and consequences of the Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation.

While its too soon to make a definitive judgement and its certainly not the case that the deep social wounds have healed, the Act appears to be functioning reasonably well, though some logistical and bureaucratic issues remain.

Meanwhile the coronavirus pandemic has complicated the picture as many patients seek advice on dying amid anxiety about contracting the disease.

The Act appears to be functioning tolerably well in that a series of workable arrangements have been put in place across a number of hospital and community settings. Its not yet known how many Victorians have used the laws to end their lives. The number of people making inquiries (the first step along the way to assisted dying) was about 400 in this first year double what had been anticipated.

But the Act has not opened the floodgates, unlike in Canada, where the number of people undertaking voluntary assisted dying were many times the anticipated number.

The system of care navigators to assist patients and their families to negotiate the complex bureaucratic processes has been working well. They have served as an important point of contact for patients, their family members and carers.

Given the difficulties of finding doctors who have signed up to do the assisted dying training, the navigators have established a network of participating health professionals and provided education across various health settings.

They have also supported clinicians through the difficulties of training and the existential realities of a changing role for medical professionals.

Inbuilt safeguards mean progressing through the procedural steps takes time. It isnt possible to say if these are functioning effectively, or if they are too stringent or too lax. More data are needed from the participants in the scheme on their experiences of the procedure.

There has been criticism of the bureaucratic requirements, which include a large amount of paperwork and multiple forms, taking weeks or even months to complete. Yet, some of these issues are inherent in the need for caution and there may be no way around them.

Ultimately, as the Parliament recognised from the beginning, a balance has to be struck between the right to access and the valid concerns of those who are more cautious.

Some logistical issues have arisen. There have been delays because of shortages of specialist doctors who have expressed willingness to participate and have completed the required training especially in key specialties in some rural areas.

The responses of individual institutions have been variable. This was to be expected, because many health services were very clear about their opposition to voluntary assisted dying. Such services have sought to develop responses including involving broader health-care networks (such as those offered by care navigators) as patients have sought to exercise their rights under the law.

One issue yet to be resolved involves a law which prohibits using an electronic carriage service to directly or indirectly counsel or incite someone to end their life. Some legal experts have interpreted it to mean practitioners cant use telehealth for assisted dying counselling. But we dispute whether this legislation can be applied to Victoria in our paper soon to be published in the Journal of Law and Medicine.

Another issue relates to a section of the laws which mean practitioners are only allowed to discuss assisted dying if the patient explicitly raises it. This safeguard exists to ensure coercion of patients doesnt occur including by health workers. But some have suggested it works as a barrier to full and open communication including sensitive exploration of an expressed wish to die. This clause has been omitted from the Western Australian legislation which was approved in December last year.

Read more: WA's take on assisted dying has many similarities with the Victorian law and some important differences

The COVID-19 pandemic has complicated the picture as a number of patients have sought advice on dying amid anxiety about contracting the disease.

Anecdotal evidence suggests additional fear from the pandemic has increased demand for assisted dying services. But simultaneously, many are avoiding hospitals where many of the assisted dying assessments are occurring because of the fear of contracting COVID-19. The impact of the coronavirus means it is difficult to compare Victorias experience of assisted dying with other parts of the world (some of which implemented assisted dying long before the pandemic).

Overall, while not problem free, there have been no major obstacles to the functioning of the Act itself.

But none of this, of course, resolves the underlying ethical differences that have characterised the debates about assisted dying and euthanasia in Australia for decades. However, the uneasy compromise in Victoria has at least allowed the debate to move on and possibly has enhanced mutual respect for the two opposing sides.

It remains to be seen whether there will be a deep, fundamental shift in attitudes to death and dying, concepts of death, the care of elderly and vulnerable people, and the goals and purposes of medicine.

Our greatest protection against an undermining of key values, however, will lie in continuing open and articulate debates about these subjects, based on rigorously collected data. It is critical these debates continue.

Read more: From 'right to die' to 'right to choose the way you die' the shifting euthanasia debate

This article is supported by the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas.

See the article here:

One year of voluntary assisted dying in Victoria: 400 have registered, despite obstacles - The Conversation AU

He died hours later after ingesting a cocktail of lethal drugs as Amazing Grace hummed softly in the background.

"The last thing I said to him was 'dad you go with so much love', Ms Scott said. "Dad replied 'and I dont want anything else'.

Mr Bareuther, meanwhile, left a note politely asking those who discovered his body not to waste any of their time on any silly theories of foul play before taking his own life alone in his shared public housing block in St Kilda.

He wrote letters to two of his neighbours, thanking them for being good friends. They were pushed under the door of one of the nearby units.

The 68-year-old, had been dying of inoperable pancreatic cancer, but was denied access to the states assisted dying laws.

His lonely death in September last year was described as a very sad tale by a Victorian coroner this week.

Keith English as an 18-year-old soldier

Fifty two people with a terminal illness have died using lethal medication sanctioned by the state government since Victorias voluntary assisted dying laws were enacted on June 19 last year.

The laws allow access to a lethal substance for terminally-ill adults who have only about six months to live, or no longer than 12 months for those with a neurodegenerative diagnosis, and who meet other strict eligibility criteria such as being able to give informed consent.

On the first anniversary of the introduction of voluntary assisted dying, doctors say while some terminally-ill Victorians are dying swift, peaceful deaths under the laws, others are being blocked due to red tape, or dying after being unable to find a doctor willing to help them.

Figures obtained by The Age show more than 300 applications have been lodged by terminally ill Victorians since the state's landmark euthanasia laws came into force last year.

While it remains unclear how many of those applications have been successful, the figure is more than double the 135 people who applied for permits and were deemed eligible between June 19 and December last year.

Mr Bareuther was deemed ineligible for the voluntary assisted dying laws because, despite having lived in Australia for about 40 years after moving from the UK,he never became a citizen or permanent resident - a key eligibility requirement.

Keith English and his daughter Marita Scott.

Coroner Phillip Byrne was moved by the case and has asked whether it was possible to introduce some level of discretion in the assessment process.

Although one can understand the rationale behind the denial of the [voluntary assisted dying] process to Mr Bareuther, I must say I have found it difficult not to feel sympathy for [his] plight, he said, in findings handed down this week.

The coroner stopped short of issuing a formal recommendation.

Euthanasia advocate Rodney Syme said tragically Mr Bareuther's inability to access the laws was not unique.

"If there was one thing I could change immediately about the laws, it would be getting rid of the clause which says you have to be an Australian citizen," he said. "Many people have lived in Australia for decades after moving here as migrants, they call Australia home. But they're being denied access because they don't have a piece of paper."

Health Minister Jenny Mikakos said she was deeply saddened to learn of the circumstances of Mr Bareuthers death, and had sympathy for the situation.

However, she added that the states euthanasia scheme was the safest and most conservative model in the world and was developed after lengthy consultation and consideration to give people suffering with an incurable illness at the end of their lives another compassionate choice.

St Kilda GP Nick Carr has assisted 15 people with applications to access euthanasia. Most died with the lethal medication in hand, but without having used it.

By the time they come to someone like myself, theyve come to terms with the fact that they are going to die, said Dr Carr, who sits on the board of Dying With Dignity Victoria.

Mr Bareuther was Dr Carrs first patient to approach him about applying for the euthanasia drug.

He said like many terminally-ill patients he had seen, Mr Bareuther had been hugely relieved when he told him he could help coordinate his euthanasia application, and devastated when it emerged that he was not eligible.

He was an Australian in every sense but a technical one, a previous taxpayer, a current Centrelink recipient and on the electoral roll, Dr Carr wrote in his submission to the coroner.

I personally was immensely distressed when I heard that Julian had killed himself. Here was a lonely man, dying of a horrible cancer, who sought my legitimate help.

Among the many successful applications hes been involved in, Dr Carr has also seen upsetting cases where it has taken people too long to fulfil documentation requirements, or they have been unable to get a second doctor to assess them, amid an ongoing shortage of medical practitioners willing to be involved.

He recalled a case of a prostate cancer patient in terrible pain who did not want to die alone, but encountered a series of hold-ups with his application, including finding a doctor to give a consulting opinion.

He actually did die alone, exactly as he didnt want to.

Go Gentle Australia chief executive Kiki Paul said while Victoria's euthanasia laws were working as intended, some of the scheme's 68 safeguards were still creating barriers for eligible patients.

"There has been a relatively low number of doctors, particularly specialists, who have undertaken the mandatory training," Ms Paul said. "This has obvious ramifications for patients seeking a doctor who is qualified to guide them through the process. This reflects experience overseas where take-up of similar laws in their early years was small."

She urged the state government to embark on a education campaign, targeted at the medical community, outlining their rights and responsibilities in relation to assisted dying.

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board, which assesses every application, will release its next report in July, which will reveal the number of people who have taken their own life using the laws in the first year.

Aisha Dow reports on health for The Age and is a former city reporter.

Melissa Cunningham is The Age's health reporter.

See the rest here:

Victoria's first year of euthanasia sees lives end in peace and devastation - Sydney Morning Herald

VSED has been normalised. But is it ethical?

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are now legal in dozens of jurisdictions around the world. Yet many people who want to end their lives do not meet the strict eligibility criteria outlined in euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation.

In light of this, medical ethicists have become increasingly interested in what is known as Voluntarily Stopping Eating and Drinking (VSED). VSED refers to an action of a competent, capacitated person, who voluntarily and deliberately chooses to stop eating and drinking with the primary intention to hasten death because unacceptable suffering persists. Patients who opt for VSED often receive palliative care from a medical professional as they die. Some commentators have describe VSED as a legal alternative to euthanasia for patients who are suffering unbearably but who are not terminally ill or who for some other reason do not meet relevant eligibility criteria for assistance in dying.

VSED is becoming increasingly common and accepted in some jurisdictions. Indeed, two articles have recently been published in medical journals offering clinical and ethical guidance to clinicians who have a patient seeking VSED.

In an review article in the Annals of Palliative Medicine, three researchers from Lancaster University claim that VSED may in fact be more common than physician-assisted forms of dying simply because it falls beneath the level of legal scrutiny. The authors suggest that VSED is legally permissible in countries such as the United States, the UK and Australia. In the United States, they note that little relevant legal precedent has been set, either related to patients undertaking it or clinicians aiding patients in their VSED effort. Some states explicitly permit VSED in at least some circumstances. A law passed in Nevada in May 2019, for example, allows individuals to create an advance directive for dementia, including the ability to specify that care providers should stop administering food and fluid by mouth.

Handling requests for VSED, however, can be complicated. In a recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia, three Victorian palliative care doctors discuss a case of a 71-year-old man who suffered a massive stroke that resulted in paralysis and severe cognitive impairment. The man required feeding and hydration by medical staff, though there was hope that he could recover his mobility. The man had an Advance Care Directive, however, stating that all care to be discontinued if he found himself in a dependent state. In light of this, his medical team ceased medications and no longer provided food and hydration, despite the fact that the manappeared to accept food and fluids and was capable of making a partial recovery. He died four days after medical care was withdrawn.

Some authors have attempted to distinguish VSED from physician assisted suicide. Legal scholars Thaddeus Pope and Lindsey Anderson, for example, argued that VSED is not a form of assisted suicide as it does not involve the administration or dispensation of a lethal medication by a healthcare professional. Rather, the patients own biology...causes the death. Lynn Jansen and Daniel Sulmasy, however, take a more cautious approach. They state that it is permissible for a physician to support a patients choice to refuse treatment, including nutrition and hydration, where such care is futile. But they believe that many cases of VSED amount to suicide, particularly where a patient is not terminally ill. Physicians, therefore, should not recommend VSED as an option to patients.

Xavier Symons is deputy editor of BioEdge

Read more:

VSED has been normalised. But is it ethical? - BioEdge

A cat named Lee who faced euthanasia after being illegally flown into Belgium has boarded a plane back to Peru to be quarantined there before being flown back to his Antwerp owner.

Lee left for Peru this morning. Unfortunately, I wasnt allowed in Peru because of the lockdown, the cats owner, 23-year-old student Selena Ali, wrote on Facebook.

Ali said that the cat, who risked being put to sleep because he was not certified to be free of rabies, would be allowed to return to Belgium from 1 August.

The cats arrival to the country at the height of the pandemic caused a media stir that prompted the highest levels of government, both in Flanders and wider Belgium, to spring to action.

After being told by federal food safety agency AFSCA that Lee would have to be euthanised, Ali put the cat in hiding and launched an online petition which gathered over 80,000 signatures.

The petition prompted a back and forth between Ali and AFSCA which drew in federal and regional Flemish ministers as well as of authorities back in Peru, where Ali found the cat during a year abroad.

The agency said that, without the proper authorisation papers, it could not be fully certain that the cat was free of rabies and said euthanasia was the only solution because there were no dedicated facilities in Belgium to put pets in quarantine.

Making the announcement on Monday, Ali said she was very grateful to Flemish minister Ben Weyts, responsible among other things for animal welfare, for his efforts to save the life of many innocent animals.

According to reports by Het Nieuwsblad, Ali revealed that the cats hiding spot was an animal quarantine centre in Zaventem which was created at the suggestion of Weyts.

On 15 May, AFSCA conducted a house search but found no traces of the cat in Alis home, suggesting the cats hiding place was arranged only weeks after she was first notified of the euthanasia decision in late April.

The cats return flight across the Atlantic will be done at the expenses of Ali, her lawyer said.

According to Alis lawyer, his client still faces criminal prosecution for bringing the cat into the country illegally but said that the coronavirus crisis meant that she had no other choice.

Gabriela GalindoThe Brussels Times

Link:

Wanted cat Lee is on his way to Peru - The Brussels Times

The Michigan Pet Fund Alliance and the Humane Society of Macomb Foundation are sponsoring a $4,000 Out of the Box Awards competition for Michigan animal shelters and rescue organizations.

The alliance created the annual awards in 2017 to showcase creative ways that animal shelters and rescues save pets lives and to share their ideas with others in the animal welfare community.

We are building a database of programs and processes that shelters and rescues can easily replicate by just taking them out of the box and tweaking them for their needs, Deborah Schutt, the alliances founder and chairwoman, said in a press release.

Three $1,000 cash awards will go to new projects or programs with proven results. Extra consideration will be given to those that engage and strengthen relationships with the community.

One $500 award will go to a standard operating procedure for euthanasia.

Despite Michigan shelters achieving no-kill status in 2018 with a 90% average save rate, humane end-of-life decisions are still required for animals that are too sick, injured or dangerous to save. One of the most difficult topics in animal welfare, every facet of the euthanasia process must be scrutinized to eliminate guesswork and minimize suffering for both animals and humans.

Another $500 award will go to a standard operating procedure in any category, such as adoptions, fosters, transport or animal care. Submissions must demonstrate knowledge of animal welfare best practices and exceptional standards of care.

Applications for the awards are due by midnight June 30. For eligibility requirements and to apply, please visit michiganpetfund.org/no-kill-michigan/2020-out-of-the-box.

Michigan Pet Fund Alliance is a nonprofit advocating best practices to save lives and stop the killing of healthy and treatable homeless cats and dogs in Michigan shelters. The alliance provides lifesaving grants, mentoring, educational opportunities, networking and other support to animal shelters and rescues.

For more information, visit MichiganPetFund.org.

See the article here:

Michigan Pet Fund Alliance offers Out of the Box Awards - The Oakland Press

SUPPLIED

Meet the David Seymours - the new Whangarei candidate is the one on the right

Two men named David Seymour, both from Whangarei, and both standing for ACT.

What are the odds? That's a semi-serious question if any mathematician out there has a few spare minutes.

On Tuesday ACT put out a statement headlined: "David Seymour to stand in Whangarei". Very droll but not a bad way to grab attention, at least among those who care about these things.

The second line of the statement clears up any confusion that might have arisen.

READ MORE:* Religious leaders' anti-euthanasia letter sparks fiery David Seymour response* Will terminally ill life insurance policyholders be covered if they ask for help to die?* Euthanasia referendum likely

Im not the ACT leader, but I am a strong advocate for end of life choice," the statement quoted the Whangarei candidate, also called David Seymour saying.

Diagnosed with motor neurone disease in 2017, he was standing for ACT in Whangarei to "highlight the importance of providing compassion and choice for terminally ill New Zealanders", he said.

David White stuff.co.nz

ACT Party leader David Seymour labels the Labour led Govt 'sleazy' in his party's policy launch on Waitangi Day.

At the general election in September, as well as voting for MPs, New Zealanders will have two referendums to consider.

One is whether cannabis should be legalised, and the other whether the End of Life Choice Bill should become law.

That bill was sponsored by the David Seymour who is the leader of ACT, and MP for Epsom. By a vote of 69 to 51 last November, MPs decided the bill should go to the referendum.

Dominion-Post

ACT leader David Seymour during the third and final reading for the euthanasia bill at Parliament.

If endorsed by the public, the law will allow those who are terminally ill to request assisted dying. The patient must be the first to suggest assisted dying, and two doctors must agree that the patient is well-informed and other legal criteria are met.

Ive lived a full and active life, but I believe that when my time comes, I should have a choice about how I go. Its my life and my choice," the Whangarei David Seymour said.

Not surprisingly, the announcement of the candidate prompted some comment:

Read the original post:

David Seymour is standing for ACT in Whangarei - but he's not that David Seymour - Stuff.co.nz

Burke County commissioners are expected to decide next week on whether to create three new animal control positions after Sheriff Steve Whisenant earlier told officials he wants out of animal control.

A decision on the positions is expected to come the same day County Manager Bryan Steen unveils his recommended budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

The county animal shelter operation moved out from under Whisenants supervision in August. It is now under Steens supervision. But then in January, Whisenant told county officials he also wanted out of animal enforcement, which remained under his supervision.

Steen told commissioners during their pre-agenda meeting last week that Whisenant has, on multiple occasions, gone on and on and on about wanting out of animal control.

Steen said the three new positions would cost the county less than the four sworn officer positions that are currently assigned to do animal control. Whether Whisenant will be able to keep any of those four positions in the sheriffs office is not known at this point. Steen said he is evaluating that and will present his recommended budget Tuesday.

Commissioner Chair Johnnie Carswell said Whisenant has been quite adamant about wanting out of enforcement of animal control. As county commissioners, they have had more complaints about Whisenants animal control officers and he feels like the county will get fewer complaints with new animal control staff.

Carswell addressed the current animal control staff during the pre-agenda meeting, saying Whisenant has six or seven vacant positions at the sheriffs office. He said if Whisenant wants to move those officers into those vacant positions, more power to him, because they are sworn officers.

The time is here for us to take charge of this animal shelter, which we already have now, it looks like its time to take our animal control, which this sheriff is not going to do because he said he doesnt want it, Carswell said during the meeting.

Vice Chair Scott Mulwee said if the county is going to get complaints about animal control he at least wants the ability to do something about the complaints and how its run on a day to day basis. The positions, if created, will be under the supervision of the county manager.

Rhonda Lee, director of human resources for the county, said the salary range for the Animal Services Enforcement Supervisor position is between a minimum of $38,970 and a maximum of $60,403.

The salary range for the Animal Services Enforcement Officer positions is between a minimum of $33,661 and a maximum of $52,188, Lee said.

The positions would be one Animal Services enforcement supervisor and two Animal Services enforcement officers, according to information from the county.

The Animal Services enforcement supervisor position requirements include a high school diploma and at least four years experience in the animal services field, including one year of supervisory experience; or an equivalent combination of education and experience.

The position also requires the person be certified to give rabies vaccinations, and be certified in euthanasia. In addition, the position requires completing of courses related of basic animal control functions or an equivalent combination of education and experience, according to county information.

The requirements for the two Animal Services enforcement officers positions include a high school diploma and at least one year experience in the animal services field or an equivalent combination of education and experience. Other requirements include certification as a rabies vaccinator, or become certified within six months of employment, and certification in euthanasia, or become certified within six months of employment. In addition, the positions require completing courses in basic animal control functions, or an equivalent combination of education and experience, according to the county.

If commissioners approve creating the positions, the positions will be in the budget for next fiscal year, which starts July 1.

Commissioners will hold budget meetings before having a public hearing and adopting a budget. The public hearing is expected to be held on June 16.

Because of precautions due to COVID-19, commissioners have been holding meetings electronically. Videos of the meetings are posted to the countys YouTube channel at Burke County NC.

For electronic meeting credentials (Zoom), contact Kay Draughn, clerk to the board of commissioners, at 828-764-9354 or by email at kay.draughn@burkenc.org by 4 p.m. Tuesday. Residents wanting to submit written comments for the informal public comments portion of the meeting can email Draughn or fax her at 828-764-9352, hand deliver to Burke County Governmental Offices, 200 Avery Ave., 2nd floor, Morganton, or send by US mail to Burke County Governmental Offices, Attn: Kay Draughn, P.O. Box 219, Morganton, NC 28680.

See more here:

Board to decide on taking over animal control from sheriff - Morganton News Herald

HUNTINGTON One By One Animal Advocates, a small local organization that works to find homes for animals in the community and reduce euthanasia rates at area shelters, has been nominated to win $10,000 from Freshpets Fresh Start program, but it needs votes to get it across the finish line.

The Fresh Start program, which was started in 2018 to provide support for overlooked cats and dogs that are often deemed unadoptable, was moved from September to April to meet the growing financial needs of shelters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fresh Start has awarded more than $100,000 in contributions in the past two years, according to a news release.

This year, Fresh Start will award five $10,000 grants to shelters across five regions in the U.S., and will recognize two runner-up organizations in each region with $2,000 each.

Ashley Morrison, foster coordinator for One By One, said she found out about the contest through social media.

I have been with One By One Animal Advocates for a little over eight years, she said in an email to The Herald-Dispatch. We serve the entire Tri-State area, pulling from all local shelters, also taking in owner surrenders, medical cases and strays. We provide vetting and match them with our reputable rescue partners. Last year alone, we sent out 4,500 homeless animals out of the Tri-State area to their forever homes.

One By One, based in Huntington, works toward its goal by finding reputable rescues that can accept local animals. It also, through donations, has conducted local TNR (trap, neuter and return) efforts to vet and sterilize feral cat colonies in the region. In addition to reducing future feral cat populations, organizers say TNR helps to both prevent the spread of diseases like feline AIDS and feline leukemia, which also benefits domestic cats, and it makes the communities the cats live in better.

With COVID-19, like many places, our normal annual fundraisers have been canceled or postponed indefinitely, which is why winning this contest will mean so much more, Morrison said. The funds will be used to cover our medical expenses, vaccinations, pull fees from shelters, transportation costs and also toward our goal of having our own transport van.

The group currently rents vans several times a week to complete its animal transports.

Voting is open to the public now through Sunday, May 17, and users can vote once per day. Winners will be announced on National Dog Rescue Day, which is Wednesday, May 20.

Read the original here:

Local animal advocacy group needs votes to win $10K in funding - Huntington Herald Dispatch

Across the country, meatpacking plants are shutting down over coronavirus outbreaks among staff. Since the start of April, huge meat firms like Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, JBS USA Holdings, and Cargill have closed at least a dozen pork, beef, and chicken processing plants, per the Wall Street Journal. At least 3,400 people in meatpacking facilities have tested positive, and at least 17 have died, the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting estimates.

And because of the intense concentration of the meatpacking industry, these facilities account for a massive share of Americas overall meatpacking capacity. As much as 40 percent of Americas pork-packing capacity is currently idle, by one estimate.

This wont necessarily lead to meat shortages, as Nicole Narea explains (though it might cause spot shortages at your local grocery store). But it has severe consequences for the animals left on farms across the country.

Pork and poultry production (and to a lesser extent beef production) is done on a just-in-time basis, explains Jayson Lusk, an agricultural economist at Purdue. Farms typically operate on the assumption that theyll be able to send off mature hogs to slaughter so that hogs still being grown have room to live; there isnt much excess capacity if the mature hogs have to stick around due to meatpacking bottlenecks.

If the finished pigs, who weigh about 280 lbs, are unable to head to the packing plant, there is no room in the barn to receive the new batch of pigs from the nursery, Lusk explains in a recent blog post. If the nursery isnt vacated, there is no room for the piglets. All the while, new piglets are being born with nowhere to go.

That means that the number of excess hogs on pig farms is growing rapidly. We have a national pork processing capacity of about 500,000 head per day, Lusk writes. Latest data suggests that because of plant closures and slowdowns, we are processing about 40% fewer pigs, which means an extra 500,000*0.4 = 200,000 pigs that are left on the farm. Every. Single. Day. Do that for 5 days, and thats 1 million excess pigs left on the farm. This holds at both small and large farms; these problems are faced by producers at all levels.

So farms across the country are facing a massive dilemma: What do we do when there are millions of additional animals we dont have space, labor, or food to care for? There are several options available, but they boil down to three big strategies:

Youre having to choose between amazingly bad options for protecting their welfare, or making the incredibly difficult choice to euthanize them all because there are fates worse than death, says Candace Croney, a professor of animal sciences at Purdue and an expert on animal welfare on farms.

Some farms are already taking the extreme step of euthanasia (a term some might argue is a misnomer since their killing isnt strictly for the animals benefit in this case). Allen Harim, a poultry processor, has announced it will euthanize 2 million chickens in Delaware and Maryland. JBSs pork plant in Worthington, Minnesota, has reopened to euthanize pigs from local hog farms, not to process them for sale. A representative for the Minnesota Pork Producers Association told the Star-Tribune he expects 60,000 to 80,000 hogs will be put down this week in Minnesota alone.

This kind of effort isnt unprecedented. In 2015, an avian influenza outbreak led to the US Department of Agriculture assisting in the euthanizing of 31.5 million birds in Iowa. But the animal welfare costs of the Covid-19 outbreak are relatively underpublicized, and severe. The costs on human farmers forced to euthanize animals are severe as well. It takes a significant emotional and psychological toll on the people who have to do it, Croney says. Theyll try to avoid it if at all possible. Its devastating to make these kinds of decisions and they have some lasting psychological repercussions.

Because animal agriculture in the US is a highly competitive industry, the life cycles of the livestock and poultry being raised and slaughtered are tightly regulated for maximum efficiency. A pig typically goes through a 292- to 311-day (about 9 1/2 to 10 1/2 months) life cycle from a female pigs impregnation through to slaughter for market, the National Pork Board explains.

That process involves four separate types of enclosures for the animals: gestation facilities for pregnant pigs; farrowing facilities for mothers (sows) and their newborns; nurseries for piglets after theyve been weaned; and finishing barns for pigs as they grow up to market size.

Each of those facilities is usually filled to maximum capacity, for efficiencys sake. That makes a bottleneck like closed processing plants immensely challenging for farmers. If they cant offload mature pigs to meatpacking plants (which usually slaughter and dismember the finished pigs), then they have nowhere to place pigs coming up from nurseries. If they leave pigs in their nurseries, then the youngest piglets just weaned off their mothers have nowhere to go. If those piglets go nowhere, then pregnant pigs have nowhere to go once they give birth. A blockage at one point in the process causes problems throughout the whole process.

Poultry faces a similar problem, though given that meat chickens lifespans are typically only 6 to 8 weeks, farmers have a bit more flexibility and fewer built-in time costs. Pasture-raised cattle are more flexible since you can add additional cattle to the pasture, but they face overcrowding concerns as well.

So, what can farms do if theyre faced with excess animals? Croney notes that they can try to slow the growth of animals, perhaps by reducing food given to them. But this comes with immense costs. You can curtail growth by curtailing how much you feed them, but then you have animals that are hungry and crowded, which sets them up for competition around food, which can lead to injury and death, she notes.

Pork and especially chicken plants already dont offer much space to their animals. A 2011 survey found that pigs got on average 7.2 square feet each; the National Chicken Council reports that standard industry practice is to give about 0.8 square feet for each chicken, or barely more than a standard sheet of paper. Overcrowding due to Covid-19 could entail offering them even less space.

Farmers can theoretically place excess animals outdoors but this might be an even worse option. In order to let them have access outdoors, much less to house them outdoors, you have to have a certain level of setup and protections for them, Croney explains. The types of fencing, shade, water access, protection from predators and inclement weather youd have to have that set up and reworked. If you have a farm with a couple thousand animals, that would be incredibly difficult to do. You certainly dont have labor to spare to help you do that, and those systems require much more intensive oversight and management.

For chickens, there are particular concerns apart from overcrowding or outdoor dangers that come into play when mature chickens are no longer being slaughtered. Broiler chickens, or chickens bred for meat as opposed to egg-laying hens, have been bred to be so large that if theyre allowed to live longer than planned, they suffer from animal welfare problems because they could be too large relative to their ability of legs to withstand the weight, Lusk explains. You dont have near that problem with pigs or cows. The animal welfare problem with pigs is the backing-up issue, and the animal welfare problem with chickens is them getting too big.

Given these difficulties, its not hard to see why some farms are already opting for euthanasia. But that comes with its own difficulties. Processing plants are supposed to render animals insensible and unable to feel pain before slaughtering them, and to use calming practices that make slaughter as minimally stressful as possible. As sad as even that death is, the process is typically smooth and the animals shouldnt be able to anticipate what is happening, Croney says. With mass euthanasia and limited personnel, that orderly, one-by-one, careful, generally consistent process is difficult, sometimes impossible to achieve, which is why no one ever wants to be in that position.

Croney notes euthanasia can take many forms, from gassing to bolt guns to straight-up gunshots; the latter creates obvious noise problems and is difficult to scale. Especially if people are using physical methods with captive bolt or gunshot, people are becoming stressed themselves and having to hurry, Croney says. That may mean that things are not done as accurately or humanely.

Then theres the problem of disposal. Without processing plants that can dismember animals, ship out usable meat, and dispose of the rest, its not obvious what farmers can do with the animals they euthanize. JBS, a massive pork processor, is sending hogs sent to it for euthanasia by hog farmers to landfills (basically mass graves) or external meat rendering plants. As processors like JBS shut down facilities, though, more and more of these tasks may be taken up by the farms themselves, not meatpackers and meat processors. That leaves disposal as more of an open question, with options like burial on the farm itself presenting themselves.

The entire situation is tragic, Croney concludes, and not just for animals. Whatever our stances on meat-eating, this is a time to be a little sensitive. There are people who are incredibly depressed, who are struggling, who really do care about their animals, and this is incredibly hard for them. The human toll this takes is not often talked about.

Support Voxs explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

Excerpt from:

Millions of animals are being euthanized due to meat plant closures - Vox.com

Reading Time: 3 minutesArchbishop Julian Porteous addresses media in Tasmania in 2017. PHOTO: Archdiocese of Hobart

Pro-life leaders are appalled that an assisted suicide campaign in Tasmania will continue with minimal delay despite the coronavirus pandemic.

Independent MLC Mike Gaffney will introduce his private members bill to the Parliaments upper house in September, after it was originally slated for August.

The End-of-Life Choices (Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2020 it is the most extreme assisted dying regime the country has yet seen. It would allow assisted suicide for those who are not terminally ill, not currently experiencing physical or emotional suffering in relation to their medical condition, and without the need to be seen by a specialist doctor.

It comes as New Zealand also prepares to go ahead with its planned referendum on euthanasia in September.

When the elderly and vulnerable are isolated and anxious, while the government and community fight to protect and save their lives, how can (Mr Gaffney) promote assisted suicide? said Australian Christian Lobbys acting Tasmanian director Christopher Brohier.

He should learn from NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro, who pulled Nationals MP Trevor Khan into line for promoting assisted suicide during the bushfire crisis earlier in the year.

We need consistent messaging from Tasmanian MPs that elderly vulnerable lives are worth saving

Whilst Mr Gaffney is saying COVID-19 responses will take precedence, he should cancel his campaign for assisted suicide indefinitely. We need a statewide and national united front in addressing the COVID-19 crisis. We also need consistent messaging from Tasmanian MPs that elderly vulnerable lives are worth saving.

The Tasmanian Australian Medical Association (AMA) is also strongly opposed to the push. A doctors role is to care for patients, to treat them, provide comfort and support, and to relieve suffering, but not to intentionally end a patients life, Tasmanian AMA President Professor John Burgess told media.

Professor Burgess also said the timing of the Bills introduction this year is inappropriate, as the circumstances around the pandemic impede an effective consultation process.

The Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous has repeatedly said that the sick and dying need to be treated with the best possible care and compassion and warned that any assisted suicide regime would put vulnerable people at risk. There is simply no safe way of legislating for euthanasia and assisted dying that does not fundamentally threaten the lives of the vulnerable in our society, he told The Catholic Weekly.

Peoples suffering and pain should be relieved in a way consistent with the dignity of human life through the use of palliative care in the final phase of their life.

The Bill lists disease, illness, injury, or medical condition, of the person that is serious, incurable and irreversible as relevant medical conditions under which Tasmanian residents over 18 would access the regime.

A person would be eligible if they had intolerable suffering caused by the relevant medical condition, or its treatment, or anticipation of the suffering that may arise from these.

The Tasmanian Parliament has voted down similar bills three times already, most recently in 2017. This is the first to be introduced and debated in the Upper House.

Mr Gaffney said he is confident it will be passed into law this year. It if is, it would make Tasmania the third Australian state with an assisted suicide regime after Victoria and Western Australia which passed their laws in 2017 and 2019 respectively. The primary purpose for me for this Bill is to give people a choice, Mr Gaffney told media.

Related:

Watch hard-hitting new euthanasia awareness campaignMonica Doumit: From bad to worse on euthanasiaNick Goiran: Elephant in the euthanasia room

Original post:

Distress at dying law plans in Tasmania - The Catholic Weekly

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known. Thats Sydney Carton awaiting the guillotine, laying down his life for a friend. An example of extreme altruism if ever there was one.

The Covid-19 pandemic offers employment opportunities for many more Sidney Cartons, even, or especially, elderly patients infected with the virus, write Julian Savulescu and Dominic Wilkinson, both from Oxford University, in the blog of the Journal of Medical Ethics.

there is a constant national emergency: we are all aging and slowly dying. There is a war against aging and death: we are fighting it with medicine. And people should be able sacrifice their interests or lives in this war.

They give several startling examples of what they mean.

Volunteering for risky trials in COVID patients with severe illness. People should be able to consent to take part in trials, or even compassionate use, of risky interventions on COVID-19 provided these generate usable knowledge of benefit to others.

Voluntary research euthanasia. When a patient will certainly die, they should be able to consent while competent to experimentation being performed on them for others, even if the experimentation may itself likely or possibly end their life sooner.

Organ donation euthanasia. A person could consent in advance to donation of their organs if it were decided that they would have medical treatment withdrawn on usual grounds, and they would certainly die of respiratory failure over a period of hours or days provided, of course, that the organs were not infected with Covid-19.

Military research service. Early or risky vaccine trials of a COVID-19 vaccine could be conducted on soldiers in exchange for avoiding active service, which involves risk of death.

Nursing home volunteers for risky research. The elderly could perhaps take place in risky challenge studies for coronavirus or early trials of vaccines or treatments. Perhaps many nursing and care home residents wouldnt want to take part in risky research. But they ought to be given the opportunity, if they are competent.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

MORE ON THESE TOPICS |

View original post here:

The elderly can still be heroes in the Covid-19 crisis - BioEdge

Updated April 21, 2020 06:30:20

Sue McCuaig fell sick "out of nowhere" when a visit to the GP around Christmas time and a subsequent brain biopsy revealed grade four cancer.

Ms McCuaig, 66, was diagnosed with glioblastoma - an almost always fatal brain cancer with an average life expectancy of just over a year.

She has had radiation and chemotherapy, but the coronavirus pandemic has meant plans to travel with her family, other than a brief trip to Uluru in March, had to be cancelled.

The first question Ms McCuaig asked her doctor following her diagnosis was whether she would have the chance to stop treatment and life if she chose to.

"I am very conscious of wanting to say when it's time for me to go," she said.

"I don't want to die when I'm the sickest I could possibly be because that's the only way we're allowed to do it."

Ms McCuaig and her family are concerned that debate on a Bill to introduce voluntary assisted dying in Tasmania will be delayed due to coronavirus.

Before the pandemic, Tasmania's Parliament had been expected to debate legislation to introduce voluntary assisted dying in August.

With changes to the sitting schedule, the Bill is now likely to be tabled in late September by independent Upper House MP Michael Gaffney, and debate will need to work around a Budget session of Parliament expected in October.

Ms McCuaig's daughter Shelley said any delay could have an impact on her mother's choices.

"Knowing she would have a choice down the track would make now a less anxious time," she said.

"We'd just be a bit more reassured if we knew we could carry out mum's wishes.

"For us it absolutely is a matter of urgency and we would just ask that the politicians do prioritise this piece of legislation and do address it now."

Mr Gaffney's End of Life Choices Bill would be the fourth Bill of its kind to be debated in Tasmania's Parliament, but the first to be debated in the Upper House.

The numbers are expected to be tight in both chambers.

Under the draft Bill, to be eligible for voluntary assisted dying a person would need to be 18 or over, a Tasmanian resident, capable of making decisions, and be suffering intolerably in relation to a relevant medical condition.

It would involve two medical practitioners, and the person would need to make first, second and final requests.

Mr Gaffney said he was optimistic the Bill could pass both Houses by the end of this year, despite the coronavirus pandemic.

"The primary purpose for me for this Bill is to give people a choice. That sounds really nice, but I do believe people should have the right to choose how they exit this world, especially if they're in intolerable suffering," he said.

"Nobody wants their parent or friend or loved one to suffer needlessly. Therefore I think the time is right for this debate.

"We've got to think that if this doesn't succeed at this hearing, it will be some years before Tasmania takes on the debate again."

The Australian Medical Association's Tasmanian branch is opposed to the draft Bill as it stands.

President John Burgess labelled the proposed legislation a form of physician-assisted suicide, "to which the AMA is strongly opposed."

He has called for the Bill to be changed to remove any need for doctors to be involved, other than by providing certificates of diagnosis and prognosis.

"The legislation as a fundamental starting point should not require the doctor to be involved in the administration of the medication or whatever process is used for euthanasia," Professor Burgess said.

"That's not a doctor's role.

"A doctor's role is to care for patients, to treat them, provide comfort and support, and to relieve suffering, but not to intentionally end a patient's life."

Separately, Professor Burgess said it was "inappropriate" to progress the Bill during current circumstances due to the difficulty of running an effective consultation process.

Mr Gaffney said no doctor or nurse would be required to participate unless they wished to be involved, and they would need to undertake training similar to what was required in Victoria and Western Australia, where voluntary assisted dying has been legalised.

The now-Health Minister Sarah Courtney told Parliament during debate on the last Bill in 2017 that she wanted it to be legal for an individual to choose to end their life when their circumstances were filled with intolerable and unrelievable suffering, but ultimately voted against that Bill.

Ms Courtney said she would give the new legislation careful consideration and scrutiny.

Mr Gaffney is seeking feedback on the draft Bill.

Topics:community-and-society,death,euthanasia,health,diseases-and-disorders,covid-19,tas,hobart-7000,launceston-7250

First posted April 21, 2020 05:41:44

Go here to read the rest:

Terminally ill Hobart woman wants to choose when she dies, but coronavirus delays assisted dying legislation - ABC News

In the landmark decision, the court said that a physician may respond to a written request for euthanasia made before someone develops advanced dementia, provided certain legal requirements are met -- even if the patient's condition means they become unable to confirm that request.

Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands if the relevant criteria are met, which include a voluntary and well-considered request from the patient, "unbearable suffering without any prospect of improvement," and the lack of a "reasonable alternative," according to the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

If those conditions are not met, the practice is still a punishable offense.

In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia.

The woman had written a directive asking for euthanasia in the event she was admitted to a nursing home with dementia and she thought the time was right.

Prosecutors had argued that the doctor did not do enough to confirm consent in ending the woman's life, saying that once she was admitted to the home, she gave "mixed signals."

At the time, the court concluded that the unidentified doctor, who has since retired, carried out euthanasia in accordance with the law and had not been negligent.

"A doctor may respond to a written request for granting euthanasia to people with advanced dementia. In such a situation, all legal requirements for euthanasia must be met, including the requirement that there is hopeless and unbearable suffering. The doctor is then not punishable," the Supreme Court said in a statement Tuesday.

The ruling also noted that doctors can legally follow through with the procedure if the patient can no longer agree to it, due to their illness.

"Even if it is clear that the request is intended for the situation of advanced dementia, and that situation is reached so that the patient is no longer is able to form and express a will, there can be circumstances where no follow-up on the request is possible," it said.

Ren Hman, president of the Royal Dutch Medical Association welcomed the ruling, but warned that the situation remained complicated for doctors.

"It is good that there is now a ruling from the Supreme Court. But even with more legal clarity, not all complicated dilemmas around euthanasia in the case of dementia are gone. With every request to end a life, a doctor must still make an individual assessment if euthanasia is appropriate and if all due care criteria are met," Hman said in a statement.

"Doctors act according to professional standards and also on their moral compass. The doctor's own consideration is and remains very important," he added.

Read more from the original source:

Euthanasia allowed by Dutch court in cases of advanced dementia - CNN

Paignton Zoo has insisted that it the current coronavirus pandemic and lockdown would have to become "much worse" before it would even contemplate the drastic measure of euthanising any of its animals.

The zoo posted a strongly worded retort to an article on DevonLive which primarily highlighted the financial difficulties it was facing due to the COVID-19 lockdown and promoted it's Help Our Zoo appeal which aimed to raise funds towards the 414,000 a month it costs to run the zoo.

A spokesman for the zoo told DevonLive that staff were having "some difficult conversation and making decisions in the next six or seven weeks".

DevonLive's article, which is accurate and, contrary to the zoo's Facebook post, never stated euthanasia was being discussed, was published after speaking at length with one of the venue's directors who confirmed what plans were being drawn up for the future of its animal collections.

The zoo spokesman added: "The bigger animals are the biggest attractions and bring people in - it would be a false economy to get rid of the lions and tigers or any of the apes."

While not specifically stating what the precise meaning of the words "get rid of" meant, the zoo admitted that no animals had been euthanised.

The discussion regarding what action may need to be taken over the coming months drew concerns from the public, many of whom regularly attend the zoo and consider it a favourite attraction.

It also led to a number of claims that DevonLive had misreported the entire issue.

Paignton Zoo took to it's Facebook page to criticise the article claiming that the story had suggested the zoo was "considering euthanasing some of its animal collection".

The post said: "Nobody from the zoo has said this. The current crisis would have to be much worse before such a move would even be contemplated."

However, while insisting that no such move had been contemplated, the zoo added: "Having said that, nobody should underestimate the financial challenge facing us.

"Like all zoos we currently have no income at all but our costs are still extremely high, running to hundreds of thousands of pounds per month.

"This is clearly an unsustainable situation so it would be remiss of the zoo's owner, the Wild Planet Trust, were it not to be looking very hard at what it can do to mitigate the loss and protect itself, and its zoos, for the future.

"We suspect that every single charity, business and enterprise in the country is doing exactly the same.

"We are very grateful for the support that has been offered to us and for the donations that we have received in the last few weeks."

In 2014, Paignton Zoo's Simon Tonge spoke with the BBC over the issue of euthanising healthy animals held in captivity as part of a Radio 4 programme about the international issue.

It came after a number of zoos were criticised for putting down animals including giraffes, hippos, leopards, tigers, lions, bears and antelopes.

He warned that attaching numbers to culls was problematic, saying that any headline with claimed zoo's euthanise thousands of animals per year would be misleading.

He told the BBC: "Well OK, but you know most of those animals were rats or mice or something like that.

"If we ever got to the point of having to consider euthanasia for a gorilla I would argue that that one gorilla would generate more interest and more column inches than 10,000 rats. So the numbers game for me is kind of irrelevant."

He said further problems came from how such a incident was categorised.

He said: "Suppose we have two animals of a species. Both are ill, but we know that with a year or more's intensive veterinary effort, we can make them well again.

"One of them is never going to breed because it's genetically not important enough, but the other one is more important.

"Because we just don't have that time and the money to invest in both of those animals we euthanise the least [genetically] related one.

"Is that a veterinary euthanasia or is that management euthanasia? I genuinely don't know.

"I wouldn't know which column to put it in in the inventory we just don't count them really."

DevonLive has contacted Paignton Zoo's communication's manager this morning (April 25) via phone and email for comment to clarify the matter.

Link:

Zoo insists that its animals will not be put to sleep - Devon Live

Smithfield, Sioux Falls, S.D.; JBS, Worthington, Minn.; Tyson Fresh Meats, first in Columbus Junction, Iowa, then Waterloo, Iowa, and Logansport, Ind. the list of pork processing facilities that have had to pause production at some point due to COVID-19 continues to increase each day. Each time a packing plant shuts down, the impact ripples through the pork supply chain from farrow to finish. For those producers who rely on those plants to market their hogs, buying time has never been more critical as they make every effort to avoid euthanasia.

"I think pork producers have done a really good job about doing everything they can to avoid having to do that," says Bob Thaler. "I mean they're double-stocking, they're holding the heavier weights, they're doing about everything they can. Packing plants have stepped up and helped move through some of that kill, but we're going to get to a point where that's not enough."

When that time comes to make difficult decisions, the South Dakota State University professor and Extension swine specialist says producers will need to work with two different entities. In South Dakota, the first call will need to be to Dustin Oedekoven, South Dakota state veterinarian.

"Before you dig a hole you need to contact Dr. Oedekoven's office at the Animal Industry Board so those plans can be approved because there are parameters about where they can be buried if you decide you want to go with the burial route," Thaler says. "Any plan for carcass disposal must first be approved by the South Dakota Animal Industry Board."

Thaler, who has been conducting an above-ground burial research project at SDSU, says that could be an efficient option for producers. Thaler's research team began the project last June to address how to effectively dispose of carcasses infected with a foreign animal disease from a commercial swine production unit without contaminating the environment and further spreading the disease. The process involves digging a two-foot deep trench, laying down 20 to 24 inches of organic matter, such as corn stalks, and then placing the animal mortality on top of that and filling the trench with dirt.

However, he says there are a lot of different ways to do composting. In Minnesota, research has been done with grinding the carcasses with a mixture of either cornstalks or wood chips and that has also been effective. While rendering may be an option now, Thaler cautions that industry may soon be overwhelmed, and incineration is most likely not going to be an option.

The second entity SDSU Extension urges producers to contact is their county National Resources Conservation Service. Thaler says there could be some funds available, such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program dollars, for carcass disposal, but the rates will differ depending on if the producer goes with burial, composting, incineration or landfill.

Regardless which burial method producers choose, Thaler says before producers take any of these actions, they need to work with their veterinarian.

"When you have a large number of animals that have to be euthanized, other things come into consideration, so obviously your herd health professional, your veterinarian should be the first one you would reach out to," Thaler says. "I would also suggest reaching out to the National Pork Board. They're a great resource when it comes to a lot of things like that in every one of those decisions animal wellbeing has to be at the forefront."

Thaler, who started his career in 1988 and has seen his share of downturns in the pork industry, says this experience is much worse, as it impacts producers both financially and emotionally. He has already fielded several calls from producers about those difficult decisions that may lie ahead.

"You can tell that's in the back of their mind, and they want someone to talk to, and so I think the emotional and mental strain of having to euthanize animals that you've cared for their entire lives is going to be much worse than the financial burden," Thaler says. "Again, mass euthanasia is certainly going to be the very, very last resort. Producers are going to do everything they can to prevent that, but when that finally happens, it will be the very last option they have available to them. We need to keep those people in our thoughts and prayers, and to reach out to our friends and neighbors who are going through this situation. It's going to be very difficult for a lot of people."

Original post:

When buying time runs out - National Hog Farmer

By Father Luis Granados, dcjm

As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of Evangelium Vitae, an old question reappears in our conversations: Can we still talk about preeminent life issues? Are abortion and euthanasia significantly different from other sins? As we will see, St. John Paul II considered them particularly serious and deplorable. By striking the fundamental relationships of the family the sanctuary of life these acts break the basic trust of our society and become the highest expression of the strong oppressing the weak.

In Evangelium Vitae St. John Paul II invites us to love, respect and promote life. The encyclical focuses on two offenses against life: abortion and euthanasia. Two solemn declarations condemn them as intrinsically evil, as the deliberate and direct killing of an innocent human being (EV, 62 and 65). But some argue today that it would be better to focus on other ethical issues like immigration, social injustice or environmental sins, which they claim are just as wrong.

By drawing particular attention to the seriousness of abortion and euthanasia, St. John Paul II doesnt intend to neglect other aspects of life which deserve careful consideration. However, among the many sins against life, some are graver than others. What makes these two offenses graver than sins against the environment or immigrants, for example?

First of all, in the case of abortion and euthanasia, we are dealing with the direct and intentional killing of the innocent. As such, we are dealing with the irreversible end of the life of the victim and, for that reason, also with the destruction of the heart of the murderer. Other sins against life may involve the injustice of not receiving proper means or protection for living (food, housing, legal documents), but here we are dealing with life itself.

The second reason is the consideration of the victim: an innocent and fragile human being. In abortion, we have the baby in the womb, the most vulnerable and innocent among the vulnerable, while in euthanasia, we have the elderly and the disabled. In other sins against life, we may have guilty or innocent people, but never someone as vulnerable and as in need as the embryo and the elderly.

Thirdly, the greater gravity of abortion and euthanasia is manifested when we consider the murderer. The physician, the father and the mother, those appointed by God as its keepers, are those who destroy the baby, and are subsequently morally destroyed. Children are called to honor their elderly parents, but in euthanasia, it is sometimes the children who decide to kill them. In both cases, the relationship between generations, the basic bond that builds our society, is destroyed.

Abortion and euthanasia are graver sins because they corrupt the human heart in a deeper way. They extinguish the most basic relationships within the family and therefore in our society. Thats why St. Teresa of Calcutta said that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, and we could add, euthanasia. Both are a war waged against children and the elderly. What they damage is not only the good of individuals but also the common good.

Finally, abortion and euthanasia are the type of sins that can never be justified. They are intrinsically evil. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church (EV, 62). In other sins against life, like immigration, we enter into the realm of prudential decisions: How many immigrants should our country welcome? Under which conditions? But in the case of abortion or euthanasia there is no such deliberation. We are dealing with an action that is always evil: always and in every circumstance (Veritatis Splendor, 52).

What about sins against the environment? In these cases, we are usually talking about indirect actions. Whereby we choose good actions (like flying frequently in order to visit a sick relative or to provide for my family) that may indirectly cause damage to our planet in the long term. We are, of course, responsible of the effects of the actions, sometimes also indirect, but our responsibility is limited to the consequences we can reasonably foresee (and in the measure of our action, not in the measure of the whole effect). The gravity of these sins is significantly smaller than in the case of abortion and euthanasia.

The coronavirus epidemic is helping us be more aware of the preciousness and weakness of human life, especially of the elderly. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote, the true measure of humanity is essentially determined in relationship to suffering and to the sufferer (Spe Salvi, 38). The coronavirus teaches us about the fragility of our life and our relationships. In moments of sickness we renew our fundamental faith in the One who heals all our diseases. There is, however, something even worse than the coronavirus. That is the afflictions that come not from outside, from the calamities of the world, but from our own evil, free actions. On this 25th anniversary of Evangelium Vitae, St. John Paul II passes the baton of the building of a culture of life to us.

View post:

There's a way for everyone to uphold sanctity of human life - denvercatholic.org

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson called on the Federal government to address the building stress and challenges facing the nations pork producers in a letter.

Processing plants have had to close due to COVID-19 outbreaks and that leaves pork producers with no place to take hogs which need to be slaughtered and processed, and finding room on their operation is tricky.

Peterson is urging Vice President Mike Pence to direct the Task Force to:

Coordinate between all involved Federal, state, and local governments to provide urgent assistance to impacted farmers;

Develop standards for humane euthanasia and disposal of impacted animals as well as outreach on existing financial and technical assistance resources available to producers;

Provide flexibility to use all available state and Federal processing capacity to the maximum extent possible to minimize supply chain disruption;

Issue Federal guidance on best practices to prevent COVID-19 transmission in plants;

Provide access to adequate COVID-19 testing for plant workers and communities;

Provide sufficient personal protective equipment for all plant workers and federal meat inspectors;

Develop resources and conduct outreach to help farmers deal with added stress during this difficult time; and

Utilize any other means at the Task Forces disposal to support farmers, processing plant workers, and plant communities.

The rest is here:

Peterson Urges the Federal Government to Take Steps to Assist the Nation's Pork Producers - KFGO News

Cafe Meow Parlour in New York City.

Sarah Whitten | CNBC

Nestled in the Lower East Side of Manhattan is a shop with a unique table in the window. A simple wood ledge is balanced on four big white letters that spell out the word "MEOW."

On a typical day, New Yorkers walking the streets can spot adoptable cats sunning themselves, sprawled out on the table or napping under the "M" or inside the "O."

These days, Meow Parlour, New York City's first cat cafe, doesn't house a single cat. Its doors are shuttered, like many small businesses in the city, due to the coronavirus outbreak. The cats that once resided inside have either been adopted or gone to live in foster homes.

"We are basically on pause, which feels really weird,"Christina Ha, owner ofMeow Parlour, said, "It looks a little bit like those horror movies where a place has been abandoned. It's very familiar to you, but it's not the same."

Meow Parlour is just a piece of Ha's small business. She is also the owner of Macaron Parlour, apatisserie that is right next door.This is where patrons of Meow Parlour can scoop up scones, muffins, cookies, croissants and macarons, of course, as well as a number of beverages.

Today, that space is closed, too.

Ha pays rent for the two different spaces, and without a steady income, paying those rents this month is going to be tough. Shesaid she plans on applying for a loan to help deal with the financial issues she is facing and is currently supplementing her income by selling catnip toys and macarons, as well as face masks, on her company's websites.

Meow Parlour, like other animal rescues across the country, saw a spike in adoptions and foster applications in late February and early March as people prepared for extended stays at home.Now Ha wonders if she'll be able to reopen once the pandemic ebbs.

Even if the outbreak were to subside tomorrow, Ha said, "We don't have enough cats to reopen and call ourselves a cat cafe."

Americans looking for comfort during the lockdown have opened their homes to new pets and foster animals, but rescues are having a hard time meeting demand. State social distancing regulations have made it more difficult for rescues to bring in new animals, vet them and place them in foster homes or with permanent adopters. However, when the outbreak is over these rescues are going to need more help than ever.

Patrons at Meow Parlor pet a cat in the window of the cat cafe.

Meow Parlour

Animal shelters started prepping for the arrival of new litters of puppies and kittens as well as abandoned animals during the coronavirus outbreak back in February, racing to empty kennels filled with healthy and adoptable dogs and cats before they are forced to resort to euthanasia.

From March 15 through the end of the month, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals saw more than 600 people complete online foster applications for its New York City and Los Angeles foster programs. New York City and Los Angeles have been hot spots for the Covid-19 outbreak and were among the first cities to implement restrictions on social gatherings.

Typically, around 200 applications will be submitted for fostering in the latter half of March, Matt Bershadker, ASPCA president and CEO, said. This year, the ASPCA saw a nearly 70% increase in animals going to foster care compared to the same period last year, he said.

At the DC Paws Rescue in Washington, D.C, the organization received close to 300 foster applications over a four-day period in the last week of March. Usually, it has about 60 homes that are regular fosters.

"We are so thrilled," Kate Viar, director of DC Paws Rescue, said. "Folks who are teleworking, or out of work, think this is a good time to foster or to actually adopt and that's great."

The North Shore Animal League America had a population of more than 300 dogs and cats in mid-March. By the end of the month, its population fell to around 180 animals, Joanne Yohannan, senior vice president of operations, said.

In Chicago, an animal shelter said it ran out of adoptable animals for the first time ever on Tuesday.

"It's something we've never thought we'd say," Chicago Animal Care and Control (CACC) wrote in a Facebook post thanking the community. "We're so happy to bring you this news.But, we are still scheduling intake from the public, and our officers are still rescuing animals in the field, so we'll probably have more again in the coming days."

However, trying to continue rescue efforts and adoptions has become increasingly difficult.More than 30 states have issued restrictions that prohibit elective surgeries and procedures including ones that take place in veterinary offices.

That means thatvaccinations and spay and neuter programs, as well as vet check-ups for non-life threatening cases have been suspended in many states over the last month. Many of these elective services were provided at a lower price for rescues than for the general public.

Rescues who pull animals from shelters are now unable to have animals cleared by a vet before taking them in and may have to pay a higher cost to get them checked through other veterinarians, if they are able to make appointments.

"I can't ask my fosters to take in a foster [animal] that isn't vetted," Viar said. "We are pulling animals right now without heartworm tests and if they are found to be heartworm-positive that could be a $400 to $500 bill.Factor in medication and the treatment itself, and getting them scheduled for that treatment, that's two to three months worth of fostering."

Homes that already have pets in them cannot risk an unvetted animal coming in and possibly spreading an infection or disease to currently healthy pets.

Sesame is Heather Gutshall's foster dog during the coronavirus outbreak. He was rescued from dog fighting by Handsome Dan's Rescue, a Rhode Island-based rescue organization that specializes in pit bull breeds.

Heather Gutshall

Some rescues that have their own medical staff are able to continue to provide vaccines to their own animals, but are only performing operations that are medically necessary. While spaying or neutering is an important preventative measure, it's not considered essential at this time.

If cats or dogs were seen by a vet prior to the coronavirus restrictions, some rescues have waived the requirement that the pets be spayed or neutered in order to get animals into adopted homes. Those procedures can occur once the pandemic is over. Typically, puppies are neutered between six and eight months and cats are neutered between 16 and 18 weeks. Although, sometimes veterinarians will neuter once a puppy or kitten reaches two pounds.

However, spaying and neutering isn't just for adoptable animals. It's also for cats that live in the community, but aren't friendly enough to live in a home.

"This is not an ideal time to stop spaying community cats," Sonja Lueschen, program manager at Orphan Kitten Club, a charitable organization that seeks to end the killing of neonatal kittens.

Most shelters are not able to care for young kittens, especially if they are brought into the shelter without their mother cat. Kittens that are less than four weeks old are at a higher risk of contracting diseases. And, even if their condition is treatable, they are often euthanized because shelters don't have the capacity to care for them.

A neonatal kitten is bottlefed by Hannah Shaw, the "Kitten Lady," a professional kitten rescuer, humane educator and founder of Orphan Kitten Club.

Andrew Marttila

Orphan Kitten Club advocates trap-neuter-return programs, which sterilize community cats to end the cycle of reproduction before overpopulation becomes a concern in a community. April is usually considered the start of "kitten season," a time when many of these kittens are born, found and brought into shelters.

"This break in actively trapping will have an impact on our upcoming kitten season," Lueschen said. "...We do believe we can use this time to educate the public not just on fostering but TNR."

Meow Parlour's Ha, worries that this year's kitten season will be overwhelming for rescues. She said animal organizations can use the heightened interest in fostering to tell people how important volunteering will be once the outbreak is over.

"We are really, really going to need you when this is over," she said.

Foster parent Lizzy Dawahare from DC Paws Rescue kisses Friedrich, a puppy from a litter named after the characters from "The Sound of Music." Friedrich has since been adopted.

Stephanie Kenner

The inability to vet, vaccinate and spay or neuter animals also means that rescues that import animals from other states are unable to do so because many states require some form of a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection to ensure that only healthy animals are transported across state lines.

"We do get a lot of cats imported in from Kentucky," Ha said, noting that this partnership started earlier this year and has had to be suspended due to the pandemic.

Rescues in northern states often transport dogs, in particular, from southern states like Alabama, Texas, Mississippi and Georgia. These states have overpopulation issues and not enough shelter space in their local areas to handle the number of dogs. With northern rescues unable to pull dogs from these southern locations, it is possible the euthanasia rate could go up.

However, if foster rates remain high, some of that could be mitigated. If shelters are able to place healthy and vetted animals in homes, even for just a few weeks, that would open up kennel space for new intakes.

Rescues recoup the cost of vet visits, care and food through adoption fees, donations and fundraisers.

Heather Gutshall, co-founder and president ofHandsome Dan's Rescue, a Rhode Island-based rescue for pit bull-type dogs, said her rescue relies heavily on its fall and spring auctions to raise money.She said that right now she has enough supplies like food and enrichment items, but people should reach out to local shelters to ask what they need.

"You will find that shelters will ask for real, tangible things," she said.

Handsome Dan's Rescue fostered Maisy until she was adopted. The dog was rescued from life where she was kept on a chain deep in the woods.

Handsome Dan's Rescue

Last week the ASPCA launched a relief and recovery initiative, a $5 million response to help provide funds and pet food to vulnerable pet owners.

Other rescue organizations are using Facebook and Instagram to solicit donations.

"We raised around $15,000 in three days," Yohannan from North Shore Animal League America said of a recent Facebook campaign. "That really, really helps keep us operational. We don't receive any government funding. We rely solely on public donations."

Still, rescues are very cognizant that for many, money is very tight right now and that a lot of organizations are looking for philanthropy to get through this crisis.

"Some people are not working and some people are working, and it's been a very unusual situation for a lot of people," Ha said. "But, it's one of those things where we had to ask: can we afford to not ask for money?"

View original post here:

Animal rescues are going to need more help than ever once coronavirus restrictions are lifted - CNBC

Debra Saunders

This weeks show features two guests who just happen to be married, which certainly makes recording convenient! Our first guest is Debra J. Saunders, the White House correspondent for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and former opinion columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. President Trump called on Debra last Friday in his daily virus briefing, and beyond the immediate story I was most interested in talking with Debra about what its like covering this White House, what its like in the press briefing room when the cameras arent running, and how broadcast journalists operate differently than print journalists. We also speculate some on the general political scene, which is likely going to be unpredictable right up to election day.

Wesley Smith

Then I turn the discussion to medical ethics with Wesley J. Smith, who is the chair of the Center for Human Exceptionalism at the Discovery Institute. The author of 14 books including Culture of Death and The War on Humans,Wesley writes frequently for National Review, the American Spectator, and other publications about ethical issues involved with animal rights, euthanasia, and biotechnology. Our conversation focuses on how the current pandemic may affect broader trends in medical ethics. And also the bad behavior of the Chinese, which goes far beyond concealing the origins and scope of COVID-19 in Wuhan.

You know what to do now: listen here, or download from our hosts at Ricochet or from your favorite podcast platform.

Link:

The Power Line Show, Ep 180: From the White House Press Room to the Hospital Emergency Room - Power Line